Introduction
Today, Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) will begin rolling out a unified naming schema for tracking threat actors. This new naming taxonomy represents an effort to standardize tracking across platforms and public reporting.
Why are we Adopting a Different Naming System?
Historically, Mandiant and Google’s Threat Analysis Group (TAG) maintained distinct tracking systems, relying on parallel naming schemas that grew independently over time. The creation of GTIG has necessitated a new, fused tracking system, and a new naming system. Thinking to the future, GTIG’s new system will rely on cryptonyms. Relying on sequential numbers or disparate identifiers (e.g. APT1) fails to provide defenders the critical context needed to operate quickly. Threat tracking shouldn’t be an exercise in memorization, but rather one of intuition. The new naming convention aligns with industry standard threat actor naming systems.
Our New Schema
Our new schema utilizes a cryptonym-based approach, employing memorable two-word combinations for each distinct threat actor:
-
The first word is a unique and memorable term chosen to represent the specific actor, particularly names that may have been used in prior public reporting. If no previously used term exists, this word is randomly generated to remove bias, then vetted by our analysts.
-
The second word categorizes threat clusters by motivation, attribution, or activity type based on which category we consider to be most important for defense and response strategies.
The table below provides a sample of how threat actor categories will map to the second word in each cryptonym:
|
Origin or Type |
Group Name |
|
People’s Republic of China |
CASTLE |
|
Iran |
ION |
|
North Korea |
NEPTUNE |
|
Russia |
RELIC |
|
Cybercriminal |
COMET |
Table 1: Examples of Google’s new threat actor naming system categories
We know there are many threat actor tracking schemas in the industry, so we are intentionally seeking to keep this system as simple as possible to streamline operations and facilitate mapping to other naming taxonomies. However, a significant caveat remains: because no two organizations have the exact same visibility into the threat landscape, direct, apples-to-apples comparisons between threat actors are rarely possible. Transitioning to a convention that is simpler to follow and remember is a practical step toward managing a highly intricate tracking problem.
A Work in Progress
We have initially prioritized renaming several dozen of the most active groups, and will continue this process on a rolling basis. Previous names will remain indexed and searchable in the Google Threat Intelligence (GTI) platform, with MITRE ATT&CK mappings and other vendor aliases preserved, see Figure 1.
